Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:38:54 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Tucson fire Basis the news article in The Arizona Daily Star - May 22, 1937, it appears that AE came into Tucson with the left engine on fire a day earlier. I couldn't get a clear (large enough) picture of the article printed in the Star's paper on Nov. 4, 2003 - it showed a reproduction of the original May 22, 1937 article - to read the entire news report. Perhaps someone in Tucson can give us a better report. Anyway, does 2-2-V-1 show heat distress along the "keel" line rivets that would line up with a fire on the left side of the aircraft? i.e. what side of the plane does the artifact seem to fit, the left or right? Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric "AE came into Tucson with the left engine on fire" is a lot different from the story AE tells in Last Flight and in the Lux advertisement. I think we need to find that article and any other contemporaneous accounts of what happened. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:17:01 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Here is a link to the info I posted yesterday. Ted Campbell http://www.azstarnet.com/flight/earhart.html *********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ted. As you said, the image of the original newspaper article is impossible to read. The recently-written blurb says: "In the middle of a sandstorm, with the left engine of her $90,000 plane engulfed in flame, Amelia Earhart touched down in Tucson, an initial stop on her fatal quest to become the first woman to fly around the world. "It was May 21, 1937. Activating a mechanical fire extinguisher connected to the engine of her Lockheed Model 10E Electra, Earhart assured onlookers that the damage was minor and that she planned to fly to El Paso the following day. She purchased a fire extinguisher in Tucson and took off." The next day she went to New Orleans but it's possible that she made a stop in El Paso. What she bought in Tucson was a new cannister for the Lux fire system. I suspect that the bit about touching down in Tucson in a sandstorm with the engine engulfed in flame is baloney but it would be nice to see what the 1937 article actually says. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:47:49 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire I agree. Do we have any TIGHARs in Tucson? Ted Campbell ********************************************************************* From Ric We have 11 TIGHAR members in Tucson including forum stalwart Kerry Tiller. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:52:39 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric said; "I suspect that the bit about touching down in Tucson in a sandstorm with the engine engulfed in flame is baloney but it would be nice to see what the 1937 article actually says.' Yeah, you're probably right, but it does make exciting reading. What better image of our heroine than her struggling with the controls (can you envision the image on the Big Screen?) as the aircraft rocks to and fro (not a good practice with an engine out, I think) and down to near-zero visibility, the wind howling outside, the aircraft bumping up and down, and BIG flames shooting from the left engine. In spite of all this, she turns to Noonan (?) and says calmly, "Tell Tucson to clear the runway. I don't know if I can hold it . . . . I'll explain it to them when we get down." Oh, the drama! And just then the aircraft goes into a steep left turn (A real no-no - turning into a dead engine!!!) The winds whistles, the airframe is banging away, the engine rpms rise, AE struggles . . . struggles . . . grimaces . . . .then slowly the plane rights itself, and she squints into the windscreen, then exclaims, "There's the runway! I think we can make it!" Well, you can fill in the details, but that's the way I want to remember AE!!! :-) LTM, who never embellished for personal gain Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric It's how legends are born. Landing in a sandstorm with an engine engulfed in flames plays a lot better than screwing up the starting procedure and then forgetting to pull the fire extinguisher release. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:18:39 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric wrote: > We have 11 TIGHAR members in Tucson including forum stalwart Kerry > Tiller. I wasn't going to post anything until I had something to report. I have off today and tomorrow and will see what I can find. The news papers themselves are usually protective of their archives due to the copyright thing, so I am going to try public sources first (the public library and the Arizona Historical Society library). I did e-mail a friend in Phoenix who works for the paper there, and he agreed to try the phoenix paper archives. I'm assuming because a celebrity was involved they would have picked up the Tucson story. In the "old" days I would go to the U of A library for old newspaper articles, but I am not a card carrying alumnus and no longer have access to the stacks. Also, I believe in the 30s, the morning and evening papers were truly independent (though they may have shared he same press), so I am hoping for stories from two different reporters. I'll let you know when I get something. LTM (who is stalwart in her own right) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric I knew you'd be on top of it. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:16:13 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re; 2-2-V-1 You never did answer my question of which side of the plane you think 2-2-V-1 came from - the left or right of center? I assume it's also from aft of the rear door area, am I correct? Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric Sorry. I get carried away. 2-2-V-1 seems to fit best on the starboard side of the aircraft, on the belly, directly opposite the cabin door. One edge is right on the keel (centerline) of the aircraft. I'll know more after Thursday which I plan to spend in the intimate company of our old friend Lockheed 10A c/n 1052 at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:19:40 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Poor Amelia. She will ever be pounded for flying ability or lack thereof. She had about the same mishaps as anyone else and probably less given the times. If you are going to fault her for anything it should be for violating one of the basic rules of flying. ENDEAVOR TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF LANDINGS AS TAKE OFFS. If we count the reef at Niku she is off the hook. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric what AE had going for her was a good manager who could help her generate enough cash to keep flying despite the wrecks that would have put other flyers out of business. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:22:57 -0400 From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric Gillespie wrote: > Thanks Ted. As you said, the image of the original newspaper article > is impossible to read. Obviously, the first two headings are easy enough to read: Fire Delays Amelia Earhart Here While She Plans Flight. --------------- Will start on World Trip near the End of This Month. She Says While Searching for Fire Extinguisher After Duelling Small Flame In Plane. ---------------- The rest is a bit harder. I've managed to get this much out so far, using the same techniques I did on the Niku aerial photos and the wreck photo, but my eyesight has deteriorated over the last few years and I am having a little more trouble because of the way the technique works: Temporarily grounded in Tucson due to a minor fire which did little damage to the engine of her $xx,xxx Flying Laboratory, Amelia earhart announced xxxx xxx xxx xxxx that with good weather, her xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx trip Have also found George Palmer Putnam rates a mention further down, but have to stop for now and do some work. Will try to reimage some more later. Th' WOMBAT. *************************************************************** From Ric With a little bit of luck, Stalwart Tiller will make more forensic skills redundant. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:06:59 -0400 From: David Subject: Off Topic - fried chicken Heres a change of pace for all those forumites working up an appetite reading the posts. The following is Amelias' moms recipe for fried chicken Ive taken from an old magazine ad I bought several years ago with a picture of Amelias mom and her recipe -she was in an ad for Royal Baking Powder...for the biscuit recipe. 2 cut up fryers, 1/2 cup butter, 1/4 cup shortening, 3 tablespoons flour, 2 cups milk, salt and pepper. roll chicken in seasoned flour, melt butter and shortening in deep fryer and brown chix on all sides. after browned,add 1/4 cup water and cook slowly till tender, about 30 minutes. remove chix, stir flour into fat in pan, remove from fire and add milk, then bring to a boil, stirring constantly till thick and smooth. simmer for 5 minutes, season with salt and pepper, and pour over chicken, dont forget to arrange the Royal Biscuits around the platter! souinds like Amelia ate good! Her mom really looks country with her ear length hair parted in the middle. this ad was from 1937. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:33:57 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Tucson fire OK, I have copies of the Star and Citizen articles on the fire in my hot little fist. Ric, if you want them for TIGHAR's files, e-mail me an address and I will send them (5 pages of 8-1/2X11). I can also try to do the scan thing, but I don't have OCR software and I'm not sure a photocopy would be high enough resolution to be able to read it. Without further ado, here are the essentials. There is no mention of a sand storm. Quoting the Star: "The blaze Miss Earhart said was just minor and was caused when an overheated motor "backfired". It was quickly smothered by a mechanical chemical extinguisher which Miss Earhart released. She said this shot the chemical into all parts of the engine and put the fire out. The damage was negligible she said and she expects to take off today [May 22] for some eastern city, probably El Paso." yada yada yada...... "The aviatrix, who had left the plane, saw the fire break out in the left motor as the plane was being taxied to the hangar. The plane was stopped and she extinguished the blaze with the automatic extinguisher connected with the motor. "The huge craft, twin-motored Lockhead Electra, was taken to the hangar, where attendants cleaned the soot and chemical from the engine." The article mentions that she was flying with her husband, her navigator "Captain" Fred Noonan and her mechanic Bo McKneely. It is not clear if they were still in the aircraft or if they had exited with her. The article doesn't say who was taxiing the plane. It seems to me Fred was cockpit qualified, and Bo may also have been; or was a crewman from the municipal field doing the taxiing (who would not have been familiar with the workings of the extinguisher)? As an interesting aside, the article spent half a column talking about or heroes trying to get their hand held fire extinguishers re-charged. They couldn't get the mechanical one credited with putting the fire out recharged because it took a special pressurized system to do it. that would have to wait for the return to Burbank. In the mean time (according to the article) George thought it would be a good idea to re-charge the hand helds. What is not said, is why they would need recharging (unless, of course, they were discharged by those one board as well). Anyway, they couldn't find anybody in Tucson (remember, it is getting on towards evening by this time) that could recharge the hand helds, so they wound up taking up an offer to buy a big, copper extinguisher of the type that is activated by inverting it. Ric, if you think it is important enough I can, of course, quote the entire article verbatim. The Citizen story was of no help. The incident happened late enough on the 21st to miss the evening paper's coverage. The Star reported it Saturday morning (22), and by the evening it was old news. The Citizen for the 22nd had relegated the incident to half a column on page two (I have that as well), there was nothing in the Citizen to contradict or shed any more light on what the Star had reported. Tomorrow, Tom Peterson at the Arizona Historical Society will save me a trip to Davis-Monthan AFB. The Society library has a copy of the Municipal Airport log. (Tucson Municipal, BTW, we claim is the oldest municipal airport in the country. It is now D-M, the civilian airport is now Tucson International to the southwest of D-M.) Tom is going to check the log for me to see if there is any amplifying information. I don't have my hopes up. The log usually just documents the pilot's name, the type of aircraft, names of passengers and landing and take off times. There is room, of course, for further comments. Because this landing involved an incident with a celebrity pilot there is a small chance more info was logged. I'd like to know who was taxiing the plane and exactly what the "attendants" did to clean up the plane after the fire. If we are really lucky, the log might give us an unbiased report on the fire itself. It might also mention her destination upon take off (no flight plans those days). I will let you know what is in the airport log tomorrow. Obviously, if there is anything significant, I will obtain copies of the entries. Also, Ric, if you would like a copy for TIGHAR files anyway, let me know and I will make that happen. As an historical aside, the hangar at the Municipal Airport where Amelia's Electra spent the night is still in existence on the D-M Air Base. There is currently a proposal afoot to get it on the National Register of Historic Places. The fact that Amelia's around the world (read last) flight Electra spent a night there may help our cause. LTM (who doesn't understand buildings being put on the Register that were built after she was born) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric Great work Kerry. You can mail the copies to: TIGHAR 2812 Fawkes Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 I can scan and OCR them here or, if necessary, transcribe them. As usual, the more we learn the less sense it makes. A hot R134o can be difficult to start. Overpriming and a backfire could start a fire, but a taxiing airplane should already have both engines running and I've never heard of a running engine backfiring and catching fire. And who is taxiing the airplane but doesn't know enough to trigger the fire bottle? The Lux advertisement says that hand-held extinguishers failed to put out the fire so it does seem that the hand-helds aboard the plane were used. >... so they wound up taking up an offer to buy a big, copper >extinguisher of the type that is activated by inverting it. We found a big copper American extinguisher in the abandoned village on Niku. We figured that it was probably from the Coast Guard station, even though it's a civilian type. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:35:35 -0400 From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Tucson fire Its very hard to envision a sand storm in may. Although it could have happened but the chance of that happening in July would be more believable. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:32:26 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: New Edition of Amelia Earhart's Shoes The new, improved, updated, paperback edition of Amelia Earhart's Shoes should be coming out in October, and the publisher, AltaMira Press, is gearing up to market it. We'd like to make sure that flyers or other advertising material goes to air museums, aviation history organizations, and other appropriate groups (Before anyone asks, we've got the 99s and Zonta International covered). If anyone has suggestions, or marketing ideas, please let me know at tfking106@aol.com. Thanks, and LTM (who likes a good read) Tom ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:46:38 -0400 From: Art Carty Subject: Re: Tucson fire I don't suppose that there are any pictures of the extinguisher in the village........... Curious coincidence LTM ( who doesn't believe in coincidences) Art ************************************************************* From Ric Oh ye of little faith.....we collected the extinguisher and we have it right here. It was manufactured by "Fire-Gun", which was a division of American LaFrance-Foamite Corporation based in Elmira, NY. It's a 1-1/2 quart pump-type carbon tetrachloride (vaporizing liquid) fire extinguisher, and would typically have been used to combat gasoline, oil, and electrical fires. The fluid would generate large amounts of fire-smothering gas on contact with heat, and could be used in freezing climates. This was a very common type of extinguisher from the 1920 up through the 1940s. We know that the Army used them but we don't know for sure that the Coast Guard did. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:26:40 -0400 From: Marsha Watson Subject: Re; Tucson fire I live about 45 minutes southwest of Phoenix. This past February driving home there was a "sand storm" that was so thick I had to pull off the road for around twenty minutes to let it pass. This was the first time since moving to Arizona in 1962 that any of us could remember a dust storm of this strength and intensity this early in the year. As I continued my drive home there were two small accidents on the other side of the road and a couple of miles from home there was a serious multi-car pile-up. Just before I reached this one, another huge gust of wind blew across an open field and totally obstructed the view of the road where a police officer was frantically trying to direct traffic. Strange things can and do happen in the desert at times, so while dust storms happen more commonly in the summer months, I have no trouble believing that there could have been an early monsoon storm in May. I am back to lurking now. Marsha Watson ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:25:00 -0400 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Tucson fire The "big copper fire extinguishers, activated by inverting" are soda-acid extinguishers. The big copper body has water with a pound of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and the top has a bottle of sulfuric acid, with a lead stopper that fall out when you invert the thing. This basically gives CO2 pressured water, and is good for paper fires. I wouldn't want to use it on gas or oil, but anything in an emergency. This is not the same as the carbon tet extinguishers, that were taken off the market because the gases they form are toxic. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ************************************************************************ From Ric Sounds like the Niku extinguisher is not like the one they picked up in Tucson. ******************************************************************* From Art Carty Wouldn't it be interesting if it had a serial number that could be traced.......hmmmmmm.......... ******************************************************************** From Ric No serial number. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:20:32 -0400 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: New Edition of Amelia Earhart's Shoes WELL THE CIVIL AIR PATROL MIGHT BE CONTACTED IN ALABAMA AND ALSO THE EAA IN WISCONSIN ARE A COUPLE OF IDEAS THAT IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:23:17 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: The copper fire extinguisher OK, here's the verbatim from the article about the copper extinguisher: (Tucson Daily Star May 22, 1937) "Finally the night man at the Motor Service company said he had one dandy big extinguisher of the "turn upside down and let 'er go" variety which he thought would be just swell for Miss Earhart's plane. The phones buzzed again and Putnam said, "Buy it, then we'll have something". But this extinguisher, bright and shiny with a pretty red handle, was not filled. That was an easy problem and was soon solved by one of Chief Joe Robert's men. He carefully measured each chemical and filled it properly. "The copper extinguisher was promptly delivered to Miss Earhart..." Kerry Tiller ********************************************************* From Ric Thanks. Doesn't sound like the Niku extinguisher. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:46:03 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric wrote: >We found a big copper American extinguisher in the abandoned village on >Niku. We figured that it was probably from the Coast Guard station, >even though it's a civilian type. What an off hand, casual comment! It excited me. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric After 15 years on this roller-coaster I've learned to be often curious but seldom excited. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:27:32 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire The extinguisher does sound like the acid/soda type that Don Postellion described - I used to refill/recharge these things with my Dad. Where I have a problem with the fire description is, it doesn't sound like an induction fire where the most common method to bring it under control was to a) keep cranking the engine and it would snuff itself out or b) bring the power up if the engine was already running. The second common fire on the radials was an exhaust stack fire (from over priming) - again keep cranking or add power to blow it out; Each of which would be hard to fight with hand helds. However, it could have been a fuel line fire under the cowling. The common airport CO2 (gas type NOT the acid/soda water under pressure) or hand held Carbon Tet type of extinguisher would be hard to direct under the cowl flaps if the engine was running, same aiming problem with trying to put out a running exhaust stack fire. AE's action to reboard the craft to activate the aircraft fire suppression system also seems to support the fire under the cowling guess, where the aircraft system would have been the most effective. All in all a very interesting diversion in the search for information on AE and company. ************************************************************************ From Ric The copper fire extinguisher coincidence seems to be a dead end. Wrong kind of extinguisher. I'm much more interested in figuring out whether the incident could be responsible for the heat damage we see on 2-2-V-1. To do that we have to get a handle on what kind of fire it was and where the flames were. So far, all of the sources agree that it was a fire that was associated with the left engine. Kerry says: >Quoting the Star: > >"The blaze Miss Earhart said was just minor and was caused when an >overheated motor "backfired". ...The aviatrix, who had left the plane, >saw the fire break out in the left motor as the plane was being taxied >to the hangar. The plane was stopped and she extinguished the blaze with the >automatic extinguisher connected with the motor." That account differs from Earhart's own description in Last Flight: "The weather was sizzling hot as Arizona can be in summertime. After landing and checking in, when I started my motors again to taxi to the filling pit, the left one backfired and burst into flames. For a few seconds it was nip-and-tuck whether the fire would get away from us. There weren't adequate extinguishers ready on the ground but fortunately the Lux apparatus built in the engine killed the fire. The damage was trivial, mostly some pungently cooked rubber fittings and a deal of dirty grime. The engine required a good cleaning and the ship a face-washing." AE says that she is the one who started the engines but says nothing about getting out of the airplane when the fire started, but in the Lux advertisement she says that she got back into the airplane to pull the Lux handle. The newspaper article also says that she had left the airplane. Two of the three accounts refer to a "backfire" being the source of ignition. That sounds like an exhaust stack fire caused by overpriming. Under those circumstances you can have a pretty good sized puddle of gas on the ground before the fire starts and a pretty spectacular fire on the pavement when it ignites. AE's comment that the ship needed a "face-washing" strongly suggests that there was sufficient flame to cause sooting of some portion of the skin. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:52:57 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire I agree with you up to a point; the Lux system wouldn't have been very effective against an exhaust stack fire but it would have been against a fuel leak (your good size puddle on the ramp theory) from under the cowling. Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric But a fuel leak would be a really big deal requiring repairs that you would think would be mentioned. What about an induction fire? How does an induction fire get started? Can it be ignited by a backfire? By the way, the are no cowl flaps on a Lockheed 10. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:58:52 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Looking at this from a pilot's stand point the account in "Last Flight" makes more sense. I recognize the book was edited from her notes at least in part and there was certainly a tendency to hype situations. Still, it rings truer than the newspaper account. Backfire on engine start happens frequently but during taxi it is far less likely. Ric, is correct considerable fuel can puddle in such a situation but it would puddle under the engine not under the right rear side opposite the passenger door. If the event occurred while taxiing the plane could have taxied over the puddle but it would take quite a fire to heat up the fuselage as much as the artifact would require. Another oddity is why and how did the two fire extinguishers get used? Lux took care of the engine fire. On the other hand if the news paper story is correct we have a fire that is going to continue longer as the plane has to be stopped, AE has to board the plane and actuate the Lux extinguisher. If that's the case some folks could have grabbed the two extinguishers and tried to extinguish the fire while AE was boarding the plane. Very confusing set of stories. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Whatever happened, it seems clear that the event went on for some considerable period of time. A couple of minutes maybe? How long do flames have to be licking at .032 aluminum sheet before it gets to about 600 degrees? I don't know. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:18:31 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: the extinguisher Ric wrote: >Sounds like the Niku extinguisher is not like the one they picked up in >Tucson. Ric, are you saying that because Dan said, "I wouldn't want to use it on gas or oil,......." or do you know there is a difference between the Niku and Tucson extinguisher? If the former it might have been the extinguisher they picked up just happened to be the only one available. Like Dan says, ".....anything in an emergency." Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm saying that because the newspaper article says it was a turn-upside-down type of extinguisher and the one we found on Niku is the carbon-tet type. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:21:07 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: the extinguisher Now back to the "big cooper American extinguisher" found in the village. Was this a turn-it-upside down acid/soda type or is it the hand pumped carbon tet. type covered earlier on the forum? One is a heck of a lot smaller than the other - the acid/soda is about 3-4 gallon water capacity. It would be a stretch to get the Tucson acid/soda type to Gardner because 1) it would have been little or no use on board the aircraft and 2) they are rather heavy and we know that AE was dumping all unnecessary weight before leaving Lae. However, stranger things have happened in this saga! Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric The extinguisher from Niku is definitely carbon-tet, not soda-acid. We can stop worrying about it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:53:01 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire An induction fire starts with to much fuel entering the carburetor (over priming on starting) and the firing of the cylinder ignites the fuel in the impeller up through the intake valves and then back up through the carburetor. That's why you keep cranking the engine - to suck it back into the cylinders. There is a lot of fire and noise but very little "free fuel" to run anywhere. Remember AE said cooked rubber parts - these could be hoses, adel clamps, etc., this sounds more like a leak of some kind. Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Induction fire - occurs during starting due to overpriming. Can be started by backfire. Fire is confined to carburetor vicinity. Not much free fuel and not likely to cook hoses or involve an external fire that would necessitate cleaning the outside of the airplane. Usual remedy is to keep cranking to suck the burning fuel into the cylinders. Otherwise, should respond well to flooding the engine compartment with CO2 (i.e. the LUX system). Exhaust stack fire - also occurs during starting due to overpriming. Fuel runs out the exhaust stack and can puddle on the ground. Usually ignited by a backfire. Fire is mostly outside of the engine compartment and can cause ground fire that could smudge the outside of the airplane, but is not likely to cook hoses or respond well to flooding the engine compartment with CO2 (i.e. the LUX system). Fuel leak - much more serious problem. Fire is in engine compartment and could also be on ground depending upon the severity of the leak. Could be started by backfire. Responds only to flooding the engine compartment with CO2 (i.e. the LUX system). Hand held extinguishersmight be required to put out any ground fire. If I've described the possibilities accurately, it sounds like we have either a combination induction AND exhaust stack fire, or a fuel leak. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:54:24 -0400 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Tucson fire Did the R 1340's on NR16020 have up draft or down draft carburetors? I hate to assume anything. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ********************************************************************* From Ric I dunno. Anybody know? ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:57:46 -0400 From: Peter Polen Subject: Re: New Shoes Tom King and Ric If there is any way that you can tie Earhart to flying a Piper plane any Piper plane and come up with a picture of such we could use your shoes book in our museum. Since I have been director of the Piper Aviation Museum for the past five years I think I can swing it. Peter Polen Director Piper Aviation Museum Lock Haven Pennsylvania ************************************************************************ From Ric I wish I could say yes but I've never seen such a photo. The best I can up with is that Earhart was a classic example of a pilot who got in over her head and had to pay the piper (ouch). ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:08:21 -0400 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Tucson fire This may be a bit off topic but do you remember "Iron Annie" ? That was the three engine Junkers Ju-52 that used to tour the American air show scene until it was sold to Lufthansa. Now bearing its 1938 German registration D-AQUI again it is now flown (after having been completely overhauled by Lufthansa and brought to today's standards) carrying fare paying passengers to help paying its maintenance cost. It is owned and operated by a Lufthansa subsidiary and each Summer it tours Germany and flies to cities across Europe, also performing at air shows to fly the Lufthansa flag. Its like if American Airlines would fly a Ford Trimotor for PR purposes and... publicity. Well, this airplane, when it was flown out of Quito (Ecuador) in 1979 (and where I saw it for the first time in 1974)i t suffered a broken fuel line after starting the engines. In no time there was a puddle of Avgas forming under the airplane. And according to Murphy's Law there was a Latin American mechanic standing by smoking a cigarette. That set fire to the Avgas and flames engulfed the Junkers. The airplane was saved by the quick reaction of the pilot who applied power and taxied out of the flames, saving the airplane. (I happen to know of this incident because I wrote the airplane's official history for Lufthansa. I also flew in the airplane a number of times. Sheer flying fun ! They don't make airplanes like that any more). LTM ********************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. A broken fuel line can ruin your whole day but it's hard to imagine that the Tucson fire could have been that serious and due to a specific failure like that and yet it not be mentioned anywhere. Come to think of it, in none of the three accounts we have of the incident is any explanation for the fire given except that there was a backfire. Engines do not burst into flame every time they backfire. Earhart never hesitated to blame mishaps on mechanical failures (even when they weren't really the cause) but she was not one to admit to errors in judgment or poor technique. I think that the lack of an explanation for the fire argues for overpriming. We have a piece of newsreel film outake from before the first World flight attempt in which Earhart is trying to start the Electra's engines for the cameras and she has a terrible time. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:47:38 -0400 From: Peter Polen Subject: Re: New Shoes >The best I can up with is that Earhart was a classic example of a >pilot who got in over her head and had to pay the piper (ouch). Ok, OK, I think it't time I went back to lurking Peter PS: What's the latest on the big book of post-loss-messages??? ************************************************************************ From Ric Working on it. We've just finished the full report on the Jaluit Survey which will be sent out next week as a special issue of TIGHAR Tracks. New developments on artifact identification involving the section of airplane skin (2-2-V-1) and the dados have also taken time, but we're doing the best we can. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:19:40 -0400 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: No forum Thursday Tomorrow (Thur.) I'll be in Windsor Locks, CT doing research at the New England Air Museum. The forum will resume on Friday. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:16:52 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Tucson fire I sent the newspaper copies off to you this afternoon. After reading them one last time it occurred to me that there are some real gaps in the story as reported. Gaps that I don't think the reporter (there is no "by" line) intentionally left. The gaps are due to editing. The proverbial light bulb went off. We need the story as originally filed. Just in case anybody else has the same thought, it ain't gonna happen. I just got off the phone with a research librarian at the Star. I thought it would be a long shot at best anyway due to the time frame. It turns out it would be a long shot even if I was looking for a story filed last week. The news paper religiously destroys such material and does not allow reporters to even keep their own notes. That way a court can't subpoena documents that don't exist. This country spends way too much time in court. I know we have lawyers on the forum so I won't get started. LTM Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric Copies received. Many thanks. I'll get it OCRed for the forum. I'm not surprised that you can't get the unedited story or the reporter's notes. We've tried in other cases. No way. It's pretty clear from the article that the reporter did not witness the incident but is relating his understanding of what Earhart (or some other witness) told him happened. His account generally agrees with the accounts that appear in Last Flight and the Lux advertisement except for the implication that someone other than Earhart was at the controls when the fire broke out. I think that is probably just a misunderstanding. The article contains frequent references to statements by Earhart that this is just a shakedown flight before she begins her World Flight. "I'd like to put 50 hours on it before the big flight." She says nothing about being on her way to Miami. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:19:15 -0400 From: Tom Hickox Subject: Re: extinguisher I am curious about the carbon tet type extinguisher. We have a family camp in Northern Vermont that has been in the family since about 1919 and has accumulated junk, one of which was a brass, pump-type fire extinguisher which at one time was on a boat. The extinguisher was about a foot long, and three inches or so in diameter, and was operated with a built-in pump handle. It made a terrific weapon in water gun wars. I was told at the time, early 1950s, that it originally held carbon tet, an excellent extinguishing material but with many disadvantages, mostly involving toxicity. I would be interested if this extinguisher we had was likely a carbon tet one. As an aside, the Rock of Ages outlook there in Newport still has the carbon tet filled glass "grenades" that were used in the fire protection system in their engine room. These glass grenades were mounted on fusible supports and dropped when the temperature was high enough. Tom Hickcox ************************************************************************ From Ric Sure sounds like a carbon-tet extinguisher. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:25:21 -0400 From: John Barrett Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric, I have never worked on an airplane engine but do have a fair amount of experience with other types of internal combustion engines. Most will have a fuel supply line of some type of metal which then has a short length of rubber hose at one or both ends where it connects to the fuel tank and carburator (or fuel pump). the purpose of the rubber hose is to eliminate the metal fatigue that the vibration of the running engine would cause to a steel line. The rubber allows for some flexibility and absorbs the vibration. The rubber will, however, become weakened by a number of factors including heat, chemical breakdown from the fuel, and vibration, and eventually need to be replaced. I am not familiar with the setup on AE's plane, but if there was a section of rubber line between the fuel pump and carb, a fair amount of fuel could leak from a small hole while under pressure. The rubber hose would, of course, be damaged or destroyed by the fire itself. Not to say that AE didn't overprime the engine on startup but maybe she had a fuel line rupture and spray a hot engine or exhaust with fuel. How long was it between landing and the restart with the fire? How long between startup and the fire? Also, she may have had a leak prior to startup which deposited enough fuel inside of the engine compartment and even on the ground before she started the engine which could cause a ground fire as well. I would hope that a pre-flight walk around would have discovered that. Again, not a pilot, just someone who loves old mechanical stuff. Back to my lurking. LTM, John Barrett ************************************************************************ From Ric According to Amelia's own account in Last Flight (which I recently quoted on the forum) she had landed, shut down, went into the airport office and signed in, then went back out to start the engines and taxi to the "filling pit". My guess would be maybe 5 or 10 minutes between shutdown and restart. The fire almost certainly occurred during the restart. Bear in mind that this airplane had just come out of the shop after a complete rebuild and inspection two days previously. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:34:23 -0400 From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: extinguisher Ric isn't there a picture of the loading of the final trip and a carbon-tet pump type fire extinguisher is waiting to be loaded along with some thermos bottles. Is that the fire extinguisher that you are talking about being found on Niku? One last question wouldn't safety require both kinds of fire extinguishers, to fight any kind of fire? ************************************************************************ From Ric There is a photo that shows something that might be a fire extinguisher waiting to be loaded along with some thermos bottles. Whatever it is, it does not look like the extinguisher we found on Niku. >One last question wouldn't safety require both kinds of fire extinguishers, to >fight any kind of fire? I don't think there was any regulation to that effect. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:44:00 -0400 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Re: Tucson fire Lets just say that the fuel gets spilled, through over-priming or fuel leak, enough to spill some on the ground, but the pilot doesn't know it yet and starts to taxi by making a hard right turn, swinging the fuselage over into the flames. At the very least this would result in smudges and potentially cook some of the belly skin. You know the rest. Pure speculation, but AE does say that the incident took place while taxiing. LTM (who likes her skin crispy) Andrew ************************************************************************ From Ric It's the newspaper article that says the plane was taxiing at the time and that just doesn't make a lot of sense unless she started the right engine and began to taxi while stating the left one. In Last Flight she says that she was starting the airplane in order to taxi to the fueling area. I don't think we're going to get any definitive answer about exactly what happened. All we can with any certainty is that there was a fire that resulted in considerable flames which required some minor repairs and some cleaning of the airplane. We can't say that heat damage to a belly skin occurred but neither can we say that it did not. The Tucson incident is a possible explanation for the heat damage we see on 2-2-V-1. I think we have to leave it at that. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:14:41 -0400 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Tucson fire Those rubber fuel and oil hoses were almost brand new in this case, but one of the installers might have failed to tighten it to the right torque value which happens sometimes- they are pressure tested during manufacture very carefully and that by the way is why we owners are really test pilots after one of these things are taken out of maintenance or annuals. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:55:49 -0400 From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Tucson fire Just a quick thought, relating to my radio hobby and also my collecting of antique recordings, relating to my musician profession: might some radio stations have some archives of transcriptions of news broadcasts (some of these were made on aluminum discs) from the period. Everything was essentially AM in those days, and some stations did maintain libraries of transcriptions for either rebroadcast or posterity. If no one has researched this particular avenue yet, it may be worth examining! Perhaps whatever station(s) were in Tuscon at that time, or their successors, may have something tucked away in such an archive! Wouldn't that be great? Amor ad Mater, ---Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:34:57 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Amor ad Mater Gene Dangelo said "Amor ad Mater," Oh, I get it, now. See, two years of Latin did come in handy. Is this another thread? How many languages do we have on the forum that can accurately translate LTM? Ove-lay O-tay Other-may, guess that Latin didn't help as much as I thought it did. Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric No. This is not another thread. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:01:20 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Tucson fire >Did the R 1340's on NR16020 have up draft or down draft >carburetors? The 10E used various Bendix-Stromberg carburetters, NA-Y9B, NA-Y9C, NA-Y9E1 and NA-Y9H. All were updrafts. Regards Angus. ************************************************************* From Ric Does it make a difference to our various fire scenarios? ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:18:32 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire >It's the newspaper article that says the plane was taxiing at the time >and that just doesn't make a lot of sense unless she started the right >engine and began to taxi while stating the left one. She could have done that if the Electra had a steerable tail wheel. Steerable by rudder pedals. Absent that she had to steer with differential engine power in which case she could not start out with only one engine running. Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric Good point. The Model 10 did not have a steerable tail wheel. It did have differential braking on the mains but it was an awkward system involving hauling on a big lever in the cockpit and punching a rudder pedal. Taxiing that beast on one engine seems like it would be very difficult if not impossible. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:19:42 -0400 From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Off Topic linguistics What a tribute to our linguistic versatility here on the forum! More power to Dennis! Lieb Zu Mutter, Gene Dangelo ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:25:31 -0400 From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: Tucson fire Food for thought: whether the carb and it's attendant hoses were in front as if so would spill gasoline on hot cylinders anyway in case of a leak or over priming. To help clear this thread, In the case of artifact 2-2v1- does it not make sense to all to keep the bird clean top and bottom especially with the gread deal of oil radials leak? I certainly would've insisted had I been her making the likelihood of burning the metal once it reached the island after landing more likely? ****************************************************************** From Ric We can see from the photos that the airplane was clean when it left Lae but after a ballpark 24 hour flight it ain't gonna be clean no more. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 13:43:31 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Tucson fire >>> Did the R 1340's on NR16020 have up draft or down draft >>> carburetors? >> >> All 10E carburetters were updraft. > > From Ric > Does it make a difference to our various fire scenarios? It certainly makes a difference to the likelihood of an overpriming fire. In downdraft carbs, surplus fuel from overpriming runs down into the inlet manifold but just gets drawn into the cylinders when the engine is rotated. In an updraft, the excess fuel runs down into the carb air box and gravity resists it being pulled into the cylinder on rotation. A backfire can ignite a considerable quantity of fuel which continued starter operation cannot easily rectify by removing the pooled fuel into the cylinders where it can be safely burnt. The mixture at starting on an aircraft engine is excessively rich and in order not to soot the plugs and unduly wash the oil off the cylinder bores, it is an advantage to lean off as soon as possible whilst taxiing. At low rpm and on overlap, when both intake and exhaust valves are open, an afterfire in the exhaust (caused by unignited fuel due to a plug failing to fire or overrich mixture being ignited by the gas from other cylinders) can travel back through the cylinder into the carburetter and set fire to any pooled fuel in the carb air box. Whilst the mixture in the inlet manifold is full rich, this won't happen but excessive leaning will allow the mixture to burn and travel backwards up the inlet manifold. Even suddenly opening the throttle too far can be enough to produce the required weaker mixture and a carburetter backfire on a cold engine. Overpriming will create both the conditions for the afterfire (which then creates the backfire through the carburetter) and the pooled fuel necessary for a fire. There is therefore a good possibility that overpriming and then sudden overleaning whilst taxiing could induce an airbox fire. The description in the paper of the fire happening whilst taxiing is thus completely believable. Ric said: >If I've described the possibilities accurately, it sounds like we have >either a combination induction AND exhaust stack fire, or a fuel leak. Exhaust afterfires are caused by unburnt fuel which has failed to ignite in the cylinder, passing into a hot exhaust stack which causes the fuel to spontaneously ignite or it is ignited by the burning gas from other cylinders. The exhaust is generally sited well away from anywhere that pooled fuel or fuel system leaks can drain so I think an "external" combination fire (involving a fuel leak) much less likely, especially as there is rarely enough fuel in the exhaust stack for it to burn anything other than momentarily and even rare "torching" from unburnt fuel in the exhaust is spectacular but usually harmless. However, inlet backfires (leading to induction fires from pooled fuel) at starting are usually caused by exhaust afterfires and so this is certainly an "internal" combination event. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric If I understand you correctly, a credible sequence of events might be: 1. Overpriming resulting in pooled fuel in the engine compartment and on the ground. 2. Engine starts. No fire yet, but fuel from the overprime continues to dribble as airplane begins to move. 3. Backfire ignites the pooled fuel in the engine compartment and on the ground. 4. AE notices the fire and stops the airplane. If she has turned the airplane to the right at all then the ground fire could be directly under the belly of the aircraft. Not good. 5. AE exits the airplane. How? The fastest way is out through the overhead hatch but that puts her on the wing right there beside the burning left engine. Doesn't sound like a great idea. If she climbs over the tanks and goes out through the cabin door she can grab a hand-held extinguisher on the way. She is probably alone in the airplane at this time, Putnam, Noonan, and McKneeley having exited with her when the flight arrived (why stay aboard?). AE was just moving the plane to fuel it. We know that the hand-held extinguisher aboard was expended in trying to put out the fire so it seems likely that AE went out through the cabin door and grabbed it on the way. 6. At some point AE re-enters the plane, makes her way back to the cockpit, and pulls the fire system handle which extinguishes the blaze in the engine compartment but does nothing for the ground fire. If the ground fire is under the belly right there at the cabin door she pretty much has to put it out with the hand-held before she gets back in. The above described scenario is speculative but it does fit the few facts that we have. The point is, if 2-2-V-1 is from the belly of NR16020, the heat damage on the artifact may have been caused by the incident in Tucson. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:04:24 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric wrote: > If I understand you correctly, a credible sequence of events might be: > > 1. Overpriming resulting in pooled fuel in the engine compartment and > on the ground. > 2. Engine starts. No fire yet, but fuel from the overprime continues > to dribble as airplane begins to move. > 3. Backfire ignites the pooled fuel in the engine compartment and on > the ground. > 4. AE notices the fire and stops the airplane. If she has turned the > airplane to the right at all then the ground fire could be directly > under the belly of the aircraft. Not good. This scenario depends very much on the exact provision for fuel drain on the carb air box. If it drains easily, fuel is not likely to catch fire from a backfire. If it is poorly drained or the drain easily blocked, most fuel will be retained within the air box. It is not then difficult to envisage a healthy fire within the engine nacelle; a little fuel can cause a lot of flame. But I don't then see much of a fire on the ground. We are only talking about of cupfulls of fuel not gallons. The only likely scenario that could produce an appreciable ground fire is one where the engine fire burnt flexible hoses which then gave way and allowed pressurised fuel to escape. Rubber is surprisingly resistant to fire and although it burns it requires quite high temperatures to ignite and burns fairly slowly, allowing time for the CO2 system to extinguish the fire. In the event a hose was breached, it would very likely produce a disastrous fire and the CO2 system would be unable to extinguish burning fuel falling from the aircraft. It seems from AE's description of the aftermath that not enough damage was caused for this to have happened however. Additionally it takes time for the temperature of aluminium (which conducts away heat well) to rise to 600 deg. If AE extinguished any ground fire, either on exit or entry from the plane and yet subsequently put the engine fire out fast enough to do little damage to the engine and ancilliaries, I doubt the ground fire would have long enough to heat the aluminium to reach that temperature in the open air. In the confined engine nacelle it could get a lot hotter however. > 5. AE exits the airplane. How? The fastest way is out through the > overhead hatch but that puts her on the wing right there beside the > burning left engine. Doesn't sound like a great idea. If she climbs > over the tanks and goes out through the cabin door she can grab a > hand-held extinguisher on the way. She is probably alone in the > airplane at this time, Putnam, Noonan, and McKneeley having exited with > her when the flight arrived (why stay aboard?). AE was just moving the > plane to fuel it. We know that the hand-held extinguisher aboard was > expended in trying to put out the fire so it seems likely that AE went > out through the cabin door . Not so likely if it was directly over a ground fire > and grabbed it on the way > 6. At some point AE re-enters the plane, makes her way back to the > cockpit, and pulls the fire system handle which extinguishes the blaze > in the engine compartment but does nothing for the ground fire. Which may well already have been extinguished - if indeed there was one. > If the > ground fire is under the belly right there at the cabin door she pretty > much has to put it out with the hand-held before she gets back in. > > The above described scenario is speculative but it does fit the few > facts that we have. The point is, if 2-2-V-1 is from the belly of > NR16020, the heat damage on the artifact may have been caused by the > incident in Tucson. My own view is that there are too many hypothetical circumstances that would have to come together for any ground fire to be big enough and last long enough to cause the 600 deg heating. Regards Angus. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:00:20 -0400 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Tucson fire Exploring the possibilities of what transpired during Amelia's spontaneous un-scripted Tucson fire drill - Consider the following question. What if Amelia was not at the cockpit controls of NR16020 during the engine start up sequence and possible attempt to taxis? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************************ From Ric Okay, let's suppose that AE's own account as it appears in Last Flight is a fabrication (other a passages in Last Flight appear to be untrue). Let's suppose that he newspaper account is accurate and AE is standing on the ground watching the airplane being taxied by someone else and notices the engine fire. The unnamed person stops the airplane, Earhart gets aboard and triggers the Lux system. I don't see how it changes the possibility that there was a ground fire that caused heat damage to the underside of the airplane. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:26:43 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: dados You say all pics show no dados in the cabin with possible exception of the lavatory bulkhead. All rib stations behind the bulkhead in lavatory are smaller spaced than 15" so 15" and longer dados can't come from there. Only place possible is the lavatory bulkhead. Why put dados there? There's no gap for stuff to fall into the bilge, there are no cables, pipes or electrical wiring to protect. What would their purpose be? I believe there are four dados. What is their total length and individual lengths ignoring shortening? Do we know the width of the lavatory door and the panels each side and do these correspond to any of the dado widths? Do the dados show evidence of having been overlapped and would this be possible? If it is not possible, how were adjacent dados mounted when a single dado would monopolise all the space between ribs/frames? ************************************************************************ From Ric We've been doing a lot of work on the dado question and have some new answers and new questions. The 15 inches between the mounting holes turns out to be of no particular significance because the mounting holes aren't mounting holes. They accommodated fasteners that held the insulation to the face of the dado. We know that because we can see the rust stain from a Tinnerman nut (or similar fastener) on the aluminum. The dados were apparently not secured to the wall at all but were simply nailed or screwed (we think nailed) to the floor. A joint TIGHAR/U.S. Forest Service expedition has just returned from Alaska where our team was successful in locating and surveying the undisturbed wreck of an Electra that crashed (and did not burn) in 1943. Many of the original cabin furnishings and non-structural features that are typically long-gone from Electras in museums are still present on the wreck and the team was able to recover examples for comparison to the the material we have found on Niku . Based on initial reports it doesn't look like we have an exact match but there do appear to be similarities. I should have the artifacts today or tomorrow. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:45:18 -0400 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Kenner letter Here's a new/old piece of information. On August 10, 1937, Lt. Commander Frank T. Kenner, the Operations Officer aboard USCG ITASCA, wrote a letter home to his wife describing briefly his experiences and impressions regarding the Earhart disappearance. About 25 years ago memorabilia collector Jon Krupnick acquired the letter from Kenner's widow. The letter is reproduced in Krupnick's lavishly illustrated coffee-table book about Pan American's Pacific Division "Pacific Pioneers - the Rest of the Story". (see www.pacificpioneers.com) The letter is interesting as an insight into the attitudes aboard Itasca after the search that were institutionalized in Commander Thompson's official report "Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight". ------------------------- TREASURY DEPARTMENT UNITED STATES COAST GUARD HONOLULU, HAWAII OFFICE OF COMMANDER HAWAIIAN SECTION 10 August Dear EVE- While some free time is available, will drop you a line, and thank you for your letter. I guess Betty's letters informed you that I had once again returned to Honolulu. It was some cruise to say the least. In spite of the tragic events that took place it was filled with interesting moments. I did enjoy getting back in the South Pacific, with old ITASCA crowd. Doebler and Nelson are gone but the others were still on her. Our cruise lasted 36 days cruised nearly nine thousand miles. As to Amelia losing herself, she had only herself to blame. We all admired her nerve and pluck to attempt such a flight, but we can not admire her good sense and judgement [sic] in her conduct of it. She was too sure of herself, and too casual. She devoted no effort to the details at all. When it was too late and she was going down she hollered for our aid but that was too late. We did all we could. She never gave us any of her positions as we repeatedly request of her to do, she never answered or acknowledged any of our messages. She gave us no information as to her plans, what plans she had for communications she changed in the middle of the flight. All in all it was a mess. I heard he last broadcasts myself. She realized too late that she was in trouble, then she went to pieces. Her voice plainly indicated that fact, by the desperate note in her transmissions. She asked us to do the impossible, knowing ahead of time that we could not furnish her with the services that she wanted. She clearly indicated throughout the flight that she was not familiar with her radio equipment. If she had only answered our messages earlier in the flight we might have had some idea where to look for her, and might have been able to save her. It would take hours to write the whole story, some day will tell it all to you, for it is interesting. There is so much that we had to assume, that we really can not find all the answers. No more new so will close for this time. Give my best to all. Do write again soon. Take care of yourself, don't work too hard. Life is too short to rush things. (the tropics have me). If you need or want anything, just holler. With much love, Frank ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:17:01 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric wrote: >The unnamed person stops the airplane, >Earhart gets aboard and triggers the Lux system. >I don't see how it changes the possibility that there was a ground fire >that caused heat damage to the underside of the airplane. Actually I think this scenario is even more difficult to buy. If there is a ground fire under the fuselage in the vicinity of the passenger door how does she board the plane? Does she stand in the fire to open the passenger door? Alan ************************************************************************ From Ric I think it's pretty clear that any ground fire in the vicinity of the cabin door, if there was one, must have been extinguished before anyone entered the airplane that way. The only real indication we have that there was a ground fire is Earhart's comment that, after the incident, the airplane needed a "face-washing", but that's a pretty good indication. We also know that hand-held extinguishers were used and expended. ======================================================================== = Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:20:46 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: extinguisher Kerry wrote: >OK, here's the verbatim from the article about the copper >extinguisher: >(Tucson Daily Star May 22, 1937) >"Finally the night man at the Motor Service company said he had one >dandy big extinguisher of the "turn upside down and let 'er go" >variety which he thought would be just swell for Miss Earhart's plane. >The phones buzzed again and Putnam said, "Buy it, then we'll have >something". But this extinguisher, bright and shiny with a pretty >red handle, was not filled. That was an easy problem and was soon >solved by one of Chief Joe Robert's men. He carefully measured each >chemical and filled it properly. The copper extinguisher was promptly >delivered to Miss Earhart.... " I am not entirely clear how we determine THIS newspaper account is 100% accurate and the one describing someone else taxiing the plane and the ensuing fire is NOT accurate. Personally the fire extinguisher story doesn't ring true. The reporter quotes a telephone comment by Putnam which he could not hear and the "pretty red handle" sounds like a reporter coloring up an event he didn't witness. Fortunately he just happened to be in the hanger at the time. The point of this is that I think we are writing off the Niku fire extinguisher based on pathetically inaccurate reporting. I'm not sure how the question could be resolved but I'm thinking. Alan ======================================================================== = Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:02:46 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: the Kenner letter How sad. A lot of what Kenner said about her casual attitudes toward this flight has already been reported by TIGHAR and her unfamiliarity with the equipment etc. is also no surprise. What I find so sad is Kenner's statement that she went to pieces when she realized she couldn't find Howland. Not exactly the image we'd like to have of our heroine. But then, how would any of us handle a similar situation? While Kenner claims to have actually heard her last words, is there any other indication that he was in the radio room at the time of the final broadcasts? I know he was the Ops officer but that doesn't mean he was really there. LTM, who hates to see anyone cry Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric As best we can determine from the various reports, Kenner was not in the shore party so he should have been aboard ship at 08:43 and may well have heard Earhart's last transmission. It's really hard to know to what extent AE really went to pieces and to what extent the crew of the Itasca needed to characterize her that way in making sure that they didn't feel responsible for her loss. It is interesting, however, that Kenner's description of the "desperate note" in her voice matches Betty's recollections and notebook. We've also just been talking about the incident in Tucson where, if she did exit the airplane without triggering the fire extinguisher, she momentarily "lost it". ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:16:52 -0400 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Tucson fire The Tucson fire incident has become a "Pandora's Box" of forum speculation to give reasonable credence as to the origin of the heat damage associated with panel 2-2-V-1. To offer intelligent speculation on an event, you must have some reasonable understanding of the event in question - From my vantage point that reasonable understanding of the Tucson fire incident has not been met as of this date in time. Not to bust your bubble, but anyone with round engine flight line experience would find your speculation of this type of fire causing the amount of heat necessary to inflict the damage you see on panel 2-2-V-1 doubtful at best - But then again if there is more to the Tucson fire incident than what has come forth so far your speculation may still have possibilities. But that requires more understanding of the incident than we have right now. What is this forum fixation with "Last Flight"? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************************ From Ric I agree that we really don't have a good handle on what happened in Tucson. There was a fire. It got put out. The damage was apparently confined to some "cooked hoses" and the need for a "face-washing". The possibility would seem to exist that parts of the exterior of the aircraft were exposed to flame for some period of time. That's about all we can say. The passage in "Last Flight" is one of three primary sources we have for descriptions of the Tucson incident (the other two being the LUX advertisement and the newspaper article). I think that everyone realizes that "Last Flight" was heavily edited and not terribly reliable; that the LUX advertisement may not accurately reflect what happened; and that newspaper articles are notoriously untrustworthy. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:38:55 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: dados > The 15 inches between the mounting holes turns out to be of no > particular significance because the mounting holes aren't mounting > holes. They accommodated fasteners that held the insulation to the > face of the dado. We know that because we can see the rust stain from > a Tinnerman nut (or similar fastener) on the aluminum. I had guessed that was the case. Obviously the insulation is secured by the veltrim at the top but needs to be secured at the base - hence the holes. Apart from the fact that the tinnerman nuts would need to be held and therefore must be assembled before fitting the dado, it would be impossible to mount adjacent panels on 15" centers anyway as the ribs would not then be available for adjacent panels.. A tinnerman nut would be superfluous for mounting unless it were a captive one, mounted on the rib. This would allow easier removal however. The real centres are actually the overall length of the panel. The panels were probably secured right at the top by the hole which is very close to the edge. It would be interesting to see if there is sufficient space on a single rib to take two of these holes at the appropriate separation. The idea that they were only nailed or screwed to the floor and otherwise unsecured seems unlikely. They are quite elaborately made for such a simple purpose and in an aircraft engineering environment, overkill on mounting provision is more likely than only securing the lower flange. You didn't comment on my question as to what possible purpose dados could serve on the rear bulkhead - especially in view of the fact that you say that such dados were definitely not fitted in positions where they might actually have been useful. Why fit such panels where they are useless and fail to fit them where they might have some use? You also didn't say what lengths the panels actually are. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric I'm afraid you're going to have to wait until we can get a new research bulletin up on the website. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:42:54 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: extinguishers >We also know that hand-held extinguishers were used and >expended. That's true but weren't they ON board the plane? Alan ******************************************************************** From Ric It's not clear whether or not all of the portable extinguishers brought to bear came from onboard the airplane. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:03:50 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Tucson fire > From Alan > > I am not entirely clear how we determine THIS newspaper account is 100% > accurate and the one describing someone else taxiing the plane and the > ensuing fire is NOT accurate. My take on the newspaper article is that the reporter was sent out to the Municipal airport to get an interview with AE for a human interest story. When he got there, she had already landed and the whole fire incident was over. The reporter got his interview and the fire bumped the story to Page One. He then stuck around for anything else of interest and grabbed the fire extinguisher angle to fill out the story. I suspect he was an eye witness to most of that part of the story and may well have overheard Putnam's half of the phone conversation. He then followed AE's party to the Pioneer Hotel for a wrap up. Since this was the morning paper, his deadline was probably not until Ten PM or so. BTW, in an effort to find a good eye witness account of the incident, Tom Peterson at the Arizona Historical Society tracked down a copy of the Municipal Airport log book for me. Apparently only the first book was saved for posterity. It frustratingly ends in November 1936. LTM Kerry Tiller ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:07:44 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Journalism Ric said: "I think that everyone realizes that "Last Flight" was heavily edited and not terribly reliable; that the LUX advertisement may not accurately reflect what happened; and that newspaper articles are notoriously untrustworthy." As a reformed journalist, I gotta jump in here and offer some sort of defense to that poor schmuck from the Tucson newspaper. Yes, journalistic standards of the 30's left a lot to be desired, and from all appearances the reporter probably was not even at the airport when it happened and got everything second hand. Reporters still do it that way today, but at least nowadays they offer some type of attribution, i.e. "Airport manger Joe Smith explained . . . ." or "A mechanic working on the damaged aircraft suggested . . . ". Imperfect, yes, but at least it offers the reader an idea of the expertise of whoever is making the comment. And of course, the greatest excuse we all learn in J-school: "Newspaper reporting is the first draft of history." Damn, ain't that noble? :-) LTM, who prefers dollars to nobility Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric Today it would be, " A mechanic, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.....". ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:38:22 -0400 From: John Bayless Subject: Re: Journalism As another reformed journalist, I second those sentiments. However, the guy who wrote the article did have a nice style. John Bayless San Antonio, TX ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:00:21 -0400 From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Journalism > From John Bayless > > As another reformed journalist, I second those sentiments. However, the > guy who wrote the article did have a nice style. That's why he got assigned human interest stories instead of "hard news". It is also why, when a document that could contain something of historical interest is reviewed decades later, we are confronted with stuff like "pretty red handle". In defense of the "poor schmuck", he could not have known the significance of what he was party to, and is probably laughing in his grave right now at the thought that someone has taken an interest all these years later in something that he wrote. Are we wandering off topic again, Ric? Sorry. LTM (who wanders off topic frequently) Kerry Tiller ************************************************************************ From Ric No. We're often faced with trying to assess the accuracy of a newspaper report. It's a thorny issue. Sometimes the media are not as fair and balanced as we might wish. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:01:29 -0400 From: John Bayless Subject: Re: Journalism In modern newspapers, the bias is not as easily discerned as in the olden days, but it's still there. Every journalist filters his or her information ... and what the journalist will view as most important is generally what he or she thinks will interest the MOST viewers in his or her target audience. Sometimes important details are left out of stories because of this - or cut out by an editor before it went to press. The sort of AE details that are crucial now are just the sort that would be "dull" background to an editor cutting copy. As a side note ... let me know if I can ever lend a hand with anything in the San Antonio area. I've been reading the forum for a while now, but have not posted before today. ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks John. According to my list (which is not necessarily current) I don't show you as a TIGHAR member. If you're not I hope you'll consider joining. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:12:57 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Supersonic Devastator I just got the latest Tighar Tacks detailing Tighar's recent work at Jaluit lagoon and I'm in awe of the quality of the photos. I had no idea the water was that clear even at those depths. Muy kudos to the photo team for a great effort! I did notice one discrepancy, though in the text: you have the maximum speed of the TBD-1 Devastator (page 8) listed at "2006 mph." That would approximately Mach 3, wouldn't it? Not bad for a straight wing, aluminum, prop-job, not bad at all! :-) LTM, who's made a few typos herself Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric Aaargh! Now matter how many times you proof-read it something always slips through. It should have read "206 mph". (2006 in a dive, wings folded) The photos are indeed breathtaking but, in all fairness, most of the still photos were taken within the last year or so by photographers other than our own team members (each photo is properly credited). What we can't show you in TIGHAR Tracks is the truly kick-butt video our underwater cameraman, Rob Barrell, shot of the TBDs and other wrecks in the lagoon. It's quite literally the best video photography of underwater aircraft wrecks any of has ever seen. Our "topside" cameraman, Mark Smith, also shot spectacular footage of the onshore wrecks and Japanese installations in addition to evocative interviews with local people who witnessed the wartime events. We're currently investigating the production of a documentary for broadcast. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:14:38 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Regarding the whole Tucson fire issue: 1. At this time of the 2nd attempt was it not generally known to the public that the 2nd attempt was underway? If so, what brought the reporter to the airport? I seem to recall that AE & company was keeping the trip under wraps until she actually left the US. 2. What (if any) weight should be given to a contemporaneous newsman's account of what happened in Tucson? We are trying to reconcile the differences in three accounts of the same event; the newspaper article - written the day of or day after, the text of the event in "Last Flight" - I am not sure how long after the event the author would have written down his first words concerning this matter and the Lux advertisement - where can we find a copy this? Keep in mind that according to AE (as quoted in the newspaper) this whole matter wasn't a big thing. However, someone judged that the Tucson event was significant - it made it into the book and also into a Lux advertisement, any idea how long after the event Lux put it into print? 3. Getting back to the fire extinguisher I don't recall the acid/soda type extinguisher having a "handle", red or otherwise. The top was screwed on and a ring was incorporated into the top to hang onto. However, there was another type of extinguisher available that may have had a handle and it was a powder/gas cartridge type where you had to drop the extinguisher on its head to drive a pin into the gas cartridge in order to trigger the extinguisher. I believe this type of extinguisher was usable on a fuel fire whereas the acid/soda type wasn't. Finally, this later type of extinguisher was also easy to service, hence the charging of the unit while everyone waited around the hanger. As I recall all the components were packaged as a "kit," powder in a cardboard tube, gas cartridge and the casing itself. Perhaps someone on the forum could shed a little more light on this possibility. 4. I can't help myself from thinking that this Tucson fire was more significant than first thought concerning 2-2-V-1. Let me see if I can summarize what we know - Ric please correct me where I am wrong. a. 2-2-V-1 has had some heat applied to a portion of its surface - approx. 600 degrees or so. b. The trip was hush-hush at this point in time and AE pooh-poohed the event, yet the incident found its way into two post event recollections - "The Last Flight" book and the Lux advertisement. c. There is other distress on 2-2-V-1: the sheared rivet heads, the bulging out and tearing along the seams. Could heat damage, albeit not high enough to temper the aluminum sheet in other areas contribute to the overall distress seen? e.g. what is the effect of heat, and how much it needed, on hardened (from bucking) aluminum rivets? d. The artifact "comes close" but is not an exact fit to portions of the L10E however, there is no other aircraft that has been looked at that gives a better fit. We don't have your info on what you found out in Windsor Locks during your most recent visit. e. The sheet does match what was used in repairs and what was aboard the aircraft according to the Luke Field inventory. Finally, a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence but yet no smoking gun! It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck but is it a *****? Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric Good questions and a good summary. >1. At this time of the 2nd attempt was it not generally known to the >public that the 2nd attempt was underway? If so, what brought the reporter >to the airport? I seem to recall that AE & company was keeping the trip >under wraps until she actually left the US. You're correct. No one was supposed to know that the 2nd attempt was under way and Earhart repeatedly misled the reporter about the trip. I'm sure that the unannounced arrival of famous flyer Amelia Earhart would have been newsworthy enough to bring a reporter to the airport even if there had not been a fire. >2. What (if any) weight should be given to a contemporaneous >newsman's account of what happened in Tucson? We are trying to >reconcile the differences in three accounts of the same event; >the newspaper article - written the day of or day after, the text >of the event in "Last Flight" - I am not sure how long after the >event the author would have written down his first words concerning >this matter and the Lux advertisement - where can we find a >copy this? Of the three accounts, the newspaper article is the most contemporaneous with the event and, in some respects, might be considered the least likely to be influenced by any agenda. If Earhart wrote the passage in Last Flight, she must have written it sometime during her 10-day stay in Miami. That must also be when the quote used in the Lux ad was obtained. It's not hard to imagine AE getting a new Lux canister in Miami and Putnam seeing an opportunity for another product endorsement. Once the World Flight began she made rough notes about the progress of the flight and sent them home periodically. Purdue might have the rough draft of the Tucson incident. I don't know. It's also possible that Putnam wrote the passage attributed to AE in Last Flight. He was there. >3. Getting back to the fire extinguisher.... I think the fire extinguisher is a dead end. The extinguisher we found n Niku is clearly a carbon-tet unit. >4. I can't help myself from thinking that this Tucson fire was more >significant than first thought concerning 2-2-V-1. Let me see if I can >summarize what we know - Ric please correct me where I am wrong. > >a. 2-2-V-1 has had some heat applied to a portion of its surface - >approx. 600 degrees or so. The heat damage to 2-2-V-1 is odd. About a third of the external surface was exposed to considerable heat for a relatively short period of time and the damaged area is along the edge that seems to correspond best with the keel of the Electra. We've wondered whether the sheet may have been use as a cooking surface but if that were the case you'd expect the middle part, if not the entire sheet, to be heat damaged. The belly of the airplane in the area where the rivet pattern matches best is sort of boat-shaped and the keel is, of course, closest to the ground. >b. The trip was hush-hush at this point in time and AE pooh-poohed >the event, yet the incident found its way into two post event recollections I don't see anything particularly remarkable about that. It was a scary incident that turned out okay. Just the sort of thing that makes for good copy. >c. There is other distress on 2-2-V-1: the sheared rivet heads, the >bulging out and tearing along the seams. Could heat damage, albeit not >high enough to temper the aluminum sheet in other areas contribute to the >overall distress seen? e.g. what is the effect of heat, and how much it >needed, on hardened (from bucking) aluminum rivets? The effect of the heat was to reduce the ductility of the metal. In other words, the heat damaged area is more brittle than the rest of the sheet. This was demonstrated rather dramatically when an Alcoa metallurgist was removing rectangular samples from the sheet for testing. When he tried to bend out a strip from the damaged area it snapped off instead of bending (depositing him on his butt on the lab floor). On the airplane, the heat damaged edge is where the sheet first fractured from the fore that struck it from the inside. In other words, it does appear that the heat damage was a major factor in the failure of the sheet. >d. The artifact "comes close" but is not an exact fit to portions of >the L10E however, there is no other aircraft that has been looked at that >gives a better fit. We don't have your info on what you found out in Windsor >Locks during your most recent visit. The visit gave us lots of raw data which must now be digitized and put into a format where we can accurately explore the question of just how close the fit is or isn't. >e. The sheet does match what was used in repairs and what was aboard >the aircraft according to the Luke Field inventory. We do know that the sheet is "reserve stock" used for repairs and modifications but not for original construction. The Luke Field inventory makes mention of "2 pieces, sheet metal, Alcoa" but there's no reason to think that those have anything to do with 2-2-V-1. >Finally, a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence but yet no smoking gun! Yes, we'd all like to have a smoking gun but that rarely happens in any investigation. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:07:30 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Tucson fire I suppose we may be beating a dead horse with the Tucson fire and the fire extinguisher story and I recognize, Ric, you think there is no connection with the Niku fire extinguisher. At the same time it appears to me the reporter's account cannot be relied on for any fact and it is only his account that throws us off on the type of fire extinguisher. He reported what the fire extinguisher looked like AND hearing Putnam's phone conversation to buy it. The reporter is piecing things together after the fact and may have been familiar with that type of extinguisher and hyped his story. I see nothing to convince me he had any first hand knowledge of what he reported nor anything to convince me he could have reported Putnam's phone conversation accurately or accurately described the fire extinguisher. Putnam was there with Amelia so who is he calling and telling them to "buy it?" The reporter's story makes no sense. Unfortunately I see no way to resolve what extinguisher was picked up at Tucson. Next subject. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:23:03 -0400 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Supersonic Devastator Congratulations to Ric on the latest Tighar Tracks which arrived today. I want to join those who express admiration on the fine quality of the underwater photography. As for the "supersonic TBD", don't worry Ric. The day before yesterday I read on a serious aviation website that Concorde was the first SUBSONIC airliner in history! There are two kinds of readers: intelligent ones and others. The first will have corrected the mistake already themselves. The others will not notice the difference. LTM (who loves to dot her i's and cross her t's to show the world she knows the value of little things like these) ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Herman. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who divide everything into two categories and those who don't. ************************************************************************ From: Mike Haddock Great job with Tighar Tracks, Ric. (You're getting a little gray there old buddy!) Will the underwater video ever be available in VHS format? I'd love to have a copy for my TIGHAR library. Thanks also to Pat for a wonderful job on the publication. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Mike. It's boat rides like the one we had just before that photo was taken that make me gray. We got caught by a squall out in the middle of the lagoon. Either the waves were too big or the boat was too small, but we were getting awful wet and slammed around, and then we lost one of the engines because it was so rough that sludge from the bottom of the tank had clogged the fuel line. If we had lost the other engine we wouldn't have been able to keep from broaching but it kept running and we limped in. The grins in the photo are genuine. I'll second the kudos to Pat. The video will eventually be available. We're still working out the details. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:27:48 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric -- The discussion of heat-damage on 2-2-V-1 has raised a question in my mind, and it's been long enough since I had the artifact in hand that I need to ask it. The heat damage is along one side of the piece, which I agree suggests that it's not the result of using it for cooking. Unless, and this is the question, 2-2-V-1 were part of a larger piece, which was cut in two (or more) pieces after it was used for cooking. Imagine a piece twice 2-2-V-1's size, placed over a fire and used to cook fish (or something), and then cut in half. Is this a possibility, given the nature of the cut/break along the heated edge? ************************************************************************ From Ric Good thought. Wrong edge. The heat damage is on the edge that fractured. The edge that may have been hacked free is the opposite side. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:13:27 -0400 From: Pat Gaston Subject: Re: the Kenner letter Thanks for posting the Kenner letter, which is achingly poignant and has the ring of truth. After all this was a private letter from a man to his wife -- circumstances in which one would least expect the writer to parrot the "company line," if in fact there was an Itasca CYA conspiracy. I see no connection to Betty unless the contention is that AE was down on the Niku reef flat by 8:43 am. Her notebook portrays an entirely different scenario. However, the letter does support the recollections of Bellarts and Galten many years later. Breathlessly awaiting the results of the dado comparison. AMC (A Mam‡ con Cari–o) Pat Gaston ************************************************************************ From Ric Allow me to elaborate on what I think happened aboard Itasca. The entire crew had an intense experience that was confused, confusing and frustrating. Earhart was lost on their watch. For the first three days after she disappeared they were quite sure that she was afloat on the ocean and calling for help. Their hopes reached a crescendo on the night of July 5 when they arrived at "281 north Howland" and saw what they thought were signal flares. ("WE CAN SEE YOUR FLARES AND ARE PROCEEDING TOWARD YOU"). The flares turned out to be meteorites and word finally arrived from California that she could not be sending distress calls if the plane was alfloat. The disappointment must have been crushing and they had to confront the fact that they had spent crucial days searching north and west of Howland while the Navy experts had concluded that the search should be conducted southeastward along the LOP. In the wake of any complex catastrophe there is always a lot of discussion and reflection and the survivors inevitably construct a simplified version of events that fit their own needs. (Think 9/11.) There is seldom any intentional departure from the truth but the consensus of what happened can often be quite different from the picture painted by the real-time records. In the case of the Itasca, it appears to have been agreed among the ship's crew that they had done its best but Earhart was so unprofessional, disorganized and, at last, upset that she defeated all of their attempts to help her. She had probably gone down at sea right where they thought she did but sank without a trace. Misunderstood radio messages and outright hoaxes had misled them into thinking there was hope when, in fact, there was none. This victim mentality shows up repeatedly in Thompson's "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight", the Kenner letter, and the later recollections of Bellarts and Galten but it does not appear in any of the hundreds of radio log entries or messages generated during the search. If Earhart was indeed audibly upset at the time of her 08:43 transmission the connection I see with Betty is that Betty also describes someone who is audibly upset but still able to function. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:49:37 -0400 From: Art Carty Subject: Re: Tucson fire I think that we have gotten too hung up on the Tucson fire; as I understand it, there is no realistic scenario that would cause 600 degree heating while 2-2-V-1 was still on the plane. What temperature would a gasoline flame be anyway assuming a ground fire and the height of the artifact off of the ground? How long would this flame have to burn to heat the artifact to 600 degrees? I'm a history major so I'm baffled. We need another idea. Ric, for clarity, is it "required" by the physical condition of the artifact that it has to have been heated before the fracture; is there anything that says the fracture has to have happened while the artifact was still in the plane (ie, could the fracture have happened in the village and could the "missing" piece still there somewhere? LTM Art Carty ************************************************************************ From Ric It should be possible to quantify this within reasonable parameters. We're not talking rocket science. We have a sheet of .032 Alclad at a height of just about exactly 2 feet off the ground. We have a theoretical fire on the ground fueled by gasoline. I don't imagine that 1937 avgas burned at a wildly different temperature than present day gasoline from the Shell station. How much time does it take to get the metal hot enough to cause the effect we see on 2-2-V-1? Sounds like the kind of experiment I'd have killed to have an excuse to perform when I was 15. >is it "required" by the physical condition of the artifact that it >has to have been heated before the fracture; No. We know that the heat damage made the metal more susceptible to fracture and we have the observation that the fracture occurred in the same place where the heat damage is now. It could be coincidence. >is there anything that says the fracture has to have happened while >the artifact was still in the plane (ie, could the fracture have >happened in the village and could the "missing" piece still there >somewhere? It takes a whopping great force (in metallurgical jargon) to cause aluminum sheet to fracture the way we see on 2-2-V-1. I can't imagine anything that anyone could do to a sheet of aluminum in the village that could generate that kind of force. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:48:20 -0400 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Tucson fire Ric wrote: > ... Sounds like the kind of experiment I'd have killed to have an > excuse to > perform when I was 15. ... It probably is unnecessary to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: I hope that no one takes up the challenge unless they really know what they're doing and take all the necessary precautions. I've seen a person burned by a gas explosion and come close to it myself (I shoulda known better!). Gasoline vaporizes readily. When mixed with air, the fumes are highly explosive. The combustible mixture of air and vapor is invisible--you won't know the location or dimensions of the fireball until it ignites. LTM. Marty #2359 ********************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Marty. Good Lord no. Kids, don't try this at home. If it looks like we really need that information I'll set up the experiment with suitable precautions. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:13:38 -0400 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Tucson fire I don't believe any notes on the Tucson fire are in the Purdue Archives. Most of Last Flight is copied directly from press releases AE sent to the Herald Tribune. I have the complete set, but I'm not at home and can't consult them as to when they started. I wonder if it is possible that AE sent releases to the Tribune, which held up their publication prior to AE's announcement and then published them. It might be worthwhile checking the Tribune columns. ************************************************************************ From Ric All of this raises an interesting question about when much of Last Flight was written and by whom. The book is written in the first person, supposedly by Amelia, except for a brief introduction by GP. In it, he explains that, "She had promised her publishers the manuscript promptly; that was one of the chores she accepted to make possible her ambition. So when she was turned back from Honolulu by the accident there in March, she did what she could to get the book well launched." Reading between the lines, it looks to me like the book was intended for the Christmas 1937 market. Had the flight gone off as planned, she would have been back home by May with time to write up her notes from the trip and still make deadline. The Luke Field wreck and subsequent delay really put the pressure on. Almost half of the book covers the period from 1935 when she decided to try an around the world flight until the departure from Miami and was apparently written at least in draft form by AE between her arrival back in California in late March and her departure from Miami on June 1. The rest of the book is assembled and edited from rough notes she sent back during the trip. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:18:58 -0400 From: Christian Duretete Subject: Re: Tucson fire > From Ric > > Good thought. Wrong edge. The heat damage is on the edge that > fractured. The edge that may have been hacked free is the opposite > side. Still: isn't there a possibility that 22v1 came off the plane as a bigger piece, and, after suffering the effect of a camp fire on Niku, it ended up breaking in two, from the heat sustained *on* Niku? Christian D ************************************************************************ From Ric Not really. The sheet did not simply break in two. (Try breaking a sheet of .032 Alclad in two.) It fractured from the application of a very powerful fluid force that also caused the rivet heads to fail. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:22:25 -0400 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Tucson fire I have a feeling we are paying too much attention to the Tucson fire and the damage it COULD have done to the Electra. All sorts of scenarios have been invented that do not sound very convincing to me. The most credible one is that when starting the engines to taxi to the fuel farm, one engine caught fire as piston engines sometimes did because of overpriming. That's why in the old days there was always a guy with a fire extinguisher standing near the engine being fired and that procedure lasted until the days of the DC-6. It sounds doubtful that AE would have let somebody else taxi to the fuel farm. I also find it unlikely she would have started one engine only to taxi. It does sound credible however that a fire developed through overpriming which was immediately extinguished using the on board extinguisher. Never mind the newspaper story. I am a retired journalist. I know how stories are written. They are usually written at a desk by someone who never was there and had to rely on reports, sometimes based on witness accounts. Witness accounts are historically unreliable. Most people have their information from hearsay. And even those who did witness an incident have varying descriptions. I don't think the Tucson story was treated much different. Unlike today news stories were more matter-of-fact in the Thirties. One of the first things we were taught when we started out in journalism in the Sixties was NEVER USE YOUR IMAGINATION. STICK TO THE FACTS. Yet even as early as the Thirties in Anglo-Saxon countries stories were already being embellished. Today newspapers have changed worldwide. Stories are written to increase sales. Therefore they are notoriously unreliable because all too often an editor has used his imagination to write a "good story". I'll never forget the day when someone wrote an interesting story, adding an interesting detail : birds could be heard singing from the trees in the square. The next day a letter arrived from a reader telling the newspaper that there were no trees in that particular square and therefore no birds can be heard singing from them... Returning to AE at Tucson, I personally find it hard to believe the airplane taxied out of a pool of flames caused by leaking Avgas. It is a possibility of course. But if it did and if it damaged the airplane to the extend we now seem to believe it did, why not find out how credible that is ? Why not ask the guys from Lufthansa who experienced a similar incident with their Ju-52 in 1979 ? The airplane was sanding in a puddle of Avgas that had leaked from a broken fuel line that took fire. The pilot taxied out of it. After the incident (and repairs to the fuel line) the airplane was flown to the US. It received new P & W engines before being sold to Lufthansa, as I explained in a previous posting. I have seen that airplane when it had been disassembled for overhaul at the Lufthansa Hamburg maintenance shop. It would be interesting to ask them if they found any piece of aluminum damaged by the fire when the airplane had been taxied out of burning Avgas on the tarmac. Personally I have no recollection of it. But one might always ask. I have a feeling that if artifact 2-2-V-1 shows signs of fire, it may be the result of things that happened to it in its later life. LTM (who finds it hard to believe farfetched stories) ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:39:41 -0400 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Digging on Tinian As most forum subscribers know, there's a group of folks who are convinced that Earhart and Noonan were executed by the Japanese and buried on Tinian Island in the Northern Marianas. This hypothesis is based on the testimony of a WWII Marine who was shown their alleged graves by a local. He has identified the location for Jennings Bunn, the U.S. Navy's archaeologist on Guam, who is an adherent to the "Tinian Hypothesis." Jennings Bunn has been working for some time to get permission from the Northern Marianas Historic Preservation Officer to excavate the alleged grave site. Mr. Bunn has now received the necessary permissions and an excavation of the site is now planned to begin on November 12 with Dr. Gary Heathcote of the University of Guam anthropology department acting as Field Director. Mr. Bunn has extended an invitation to anyone else who would care to participate. We don't yet know whether any of the members of our Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) will be able to make it but if any forum subscribers are interested you can contact Jennings Bunn at: N455@guam.navy.mil ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:13:28 -0400 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Tucson article As promised, here's the full text of the Tucson Daily Star article from May 22, 1937. ************************************************************ Fire Delays Amelia Earhart Here While She Plans Flight Will Start on World Trip Near the End of This Month, She Says While Searching for Fire Extinguisher After Dousing Small Blaze in Plane Temporarily grounded in Tucson due to a minor fire which did little damage to the motor of her $90,000 Flying Laboratory, Amelia Earhart announced here last night that with good weather, her second globe girdling trip would start sometime near the end of this month. The route will be the same except for minor changes called for by shifting weather conditions. The blaze Miss Earhart said was just minor and was caused when an overheated motor "backfired." It was quickly smothered by a mechanical chemical extinguisher Miss Earhart released. She said this shot the chemical into all parts of the engine and put the fire out. The damage was negligible she said and she expects to take off today for some eastern city, probably El Paso. With Husband Miss Earhart, with her husband, George Palmer Putnam, New York publisher, her navigator, Captain Fred Noonan, and her mechanic, Bo McKneeley, had just landed at the municipal airport after a flight from Burbank, California, when the flames shot from the engine. The aviatrix, who had left the plane, saw the fire break out in the left motor as the plane was being taxied to the hangar. The plane was stopped and she extinguished the blaze with the automatic extinguisher connected with the motor. The huge craft, twin-motored Lockhead [sic] Electra, was taken to the hangar, where attendants cleaned the soot and chemical from the engine. Just Out Of Shop Miss Earhart and her party came to the Pioneer hotel last night after the plane was taken care of in the municipal hangar. She said the plane had just been out of the factory at Burbank for two days after having been completely overhauled following the crack-up in Honolulu. "It's just like new now, and has to be taken on a shake-down flight. I'd like to put 50 hours on it before the big flight." Thursday they flew from Burbank to Oakland and return and yesterday they came here. Putnam is returning to New York and Miss Earhart will fly him part way. "I'm just flying anywhere," she said, "merely to check the plane and see that everything is working properly. We made all our fuel tests before and of course don't have to do that again. Our course this time will be much the same as the last one with the exception of a few changes due to shifting weather. That course was made for conditions as they were in March and now, 60 days later, the weather has altered in some places. The route will be primarily around the world following the equator." Something To Do Miss Earhart said she would like very much to make this first round the world flight. "If I don't some one else will," she added. She said lone flyers have pioneered all the present commercial routes and it's up to lone flyers to continue making new course. "And besides this flight gives me something to do," she concluded. In the meantime Miss Earhart was without a serviceable fire extinguisher. Her trick mechanical one that so neatly put out the fire last night was exhausted and as it must be filled with a special "under pressure" system which the local airport does not possess, she could not have it recharged until she returns to Burbank. She also carries in her plane several of the small quart size hand operated extinguishers. These were also played on yesterday's blaze by mechanics and were empty. Extinguishers Needed Putnam and Miss Earhart decided that they would have to have some servicable [sic] fire fighting equipment before they left in the morning, just as a precautionary measure. They decided, at least, to get their small hand operated extinguishers recharged. Surely, they thought, they could get them filled in Tucson. A half hour on the telephone calling everyone possible from the fire department to the airport revealed no recharge chemical for the extinguishers. They decided to abandon that idea and get an extinguisher, but the little extinguishers like the ones they had cost $14. Now $14 is a good bit to pay for additional extinguishers even for a $90,000 plane, when you already have some and all you need is the chemical. Filler Provided Finally the night man at the Motor Service company said he had one dandy big extinguisher of the "turn upside down and let 'er go" variety which he thought would be just swell for Miss Earhart's plane. The phones buzzed again and Putnam said, "But it, then we'll have something." But this extinguisher, bright and shiny with a pretty red handle, was not filled. That was an easy problem and was soon solved by one of Chief Joe Robert's men. He carefully measured each chemical and filled it properly. The copper extinguisher was promptly delivered to Miss Earhart. She started to write out a check to pay for the apparatus and said, "What date is today?" She was told "May 21." "Why that's right," she said, "five years ago today I landed in Ireland." Made History Miss Earhart went on talking about her proposed trip. She might also have mentioned that on that trip five years ago she made world history, being the first woman pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic ocean, her flight was from Newfoundland to Ireland. In January, 1935, she flew from Hawaii to California and in May of the same year she flew from Mexico City to New York in a non-stop jump. This past March she set a new record in her flight from California to Honolulu. The fire extinguisher man pocketed the check and left. Then half of Tucson called up with extinguishers of all descriptions. Her mechanic secured recharges for the hand extinguishers and all was well. She was told to be sure and keep this newly purchased extinguisher in an upright position. Not expecting to do any loops, she said she would. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:58:59 -0400 From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Tucson fire > From Herman De Wulf (#2406) > Why not ask > the guys from Lufthansa who experienced a similar incident with their Ju-52 > in 1979 ? The airplane was sanding in a puddle of Avgas that had leaked from > a broken fuel line that took fire. The pilot taxied out of it. After the > incident (and repairs to the fuel line) the airplane was flown to the US. By a remarkable coincidence, I may have photographed this aircraft extensively if it landed at Liverpool (Speke) airport en-route for the US. Anyone know?? I don't remember the date but it could well be the same one. I'll look for the photos and see if it shows any fire damage. (And a few minutes later....) Ric, Interestingly the Ju 52 I photographed shows extensive sooting of the fuselage and wing leading edge between the starboard and centre engines. This is also the area where one of the centre engine exhausts discharges but - significantly - the same area on the other side of the engine behind the other exhaust, is completely clean. Regards Angus. ************************************************************************ From Ric Of course, the sooting is not the damage. The kind of heat damage present on portions of 2-2-V-1 is very difficult to discern from just looking at the metal. We had no idea there was any such damage to 2-2-V-1 until a metallurgist at Alcoa was cutting three rectangular sections out of one end of the piece for testing. He would make two parallel cuts with a big pair of tin snips, then bend the strip up and cut it off at the base. Two rectangular strips were thus cut out without incident (except for the anguish of watching our artifact butchered). But when he went to bend back the third strip it snapped, almost resulting in injury to the metallurgist. At that point everyone sort of said, "Whoa, what's going on here?" Microscope examination of a cross-section of the aluminum revealed a change in the molecular structure due to heat damage. Knowing that the damage is there, if you look carefully at the exterior surface of the sheet in good light you can see a subtle difference in the sheen of the surface. I can easily see someone cleaning off the soot, looking at the skin, and saying, "Looks fine. No damage." What your photos of the Ju 52 seem to suggest is that an aircraft exposed to a gasoline ground fire needs a "face-washing". ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:25:32 -0400 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Digging on Tinian I would certainly like to go to Tinian and help with the dig but I think it is an exercise in futility. Perhaps the Japanese capture folks would be interested. At least I have far more capability of reaching Tinian from Texas than AE did from Howland. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:41:28 -0400 From: Robert Ward Subject: Re: Kenner letter I'm a fairly new person ....and I'm lurking at the present.....I wanted to Thank the person(I think it's you)who put in that link to Pacific Pioneers, which in turn led me to purchase that book "Pacific Pioneers" The rest of the story....I'm a Flying boat person....and...flew the South pacific during the 50s.... Thank you very much... Robert Ward ************************************************************* From Ric You're welcome. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:43:48 -0400 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Tucson fire Did 1937 Tucson Municipal Airport have a fueling pit or designated fueling area? - People continue to speculate about NR16020 taxing to a fueling pit at the time of fire incident - I find it unusual for the time period - Most fueling was done plane side by truck transport. Respectfully: Tom strang # 2559 ************************************************************************ From Ric The reference to a "fueling pit" comes from Amelia in Last Flight. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:25:39 -0400 From: Tom King Subject: Re; Kenner letter Welcome to the Forum, Robert. I'm wondering: did you by any chance fly Flying Boats into Canton Island? ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:51:46 -0400 From: Ted Campbell Subject: Re: Tucson fire Thanks for the reprint of the Tucson article. Just some observations and thoughts to ponder: 1. Well, AE lets the cat out of the bag regarding the second attempt by announcing that by the "end of the month" she hopes to start out on the fateful voyage. This seems to support Ric's contention that it was the "famous" aspect of AE persona that brought the reporter to the airport and not the fact that it was the start of her second attempt. 2. It does seem that someone else was taxing the aircraft to the hanger and I would suggest it was Bo McKneeley. I recently ran across a web page that had an interview with a person who had interviewed Bo and it was clear that Bo took his position of being responsible for the aircraft Very seriously. Therefore, it seems like a reasonable assumption that if AE "saw the fire break out in the left engine as the plane was being taxied to the hanger." she wasn't aboard and that Bo was at the controls. 3. The fire was a major event. It took the engine system and "several of the small quart size hand operated extinguishers" to put it out. The article doesn't say anything about a face washing, etc. that has been quoted earlier on the forum. I guess these quotes came from the book "The Last Flight." By everyone's account there was a lot of activity going on around the plane on the afternoon of the 21st of May 1937 i.e. the lines of print in the newspaper story, the recollection of the event for the book "The Last Flight" and the Lux advertisement seem to support the major incident hypothesis. 4. Concerning AE's action that day: The reporter's account of how the fire was finally put out by "the automatic extinguisher connected with the motor." congers up three scenarios in my mind: a) Bo (or whomever was taxing automatically pulled the extinguisher) and AE took credit for it, b) the fire was not present in the area under the belly near the rear door, under the trailing edge of the left wing or lapping up from under the cowling over the top of the left wing near the cockpit door and therefore was not a major concern as described and AE did jump into or onto the plane and therefor could have activated the engine system, or c) AE could have been on the ground yelling to Bo to pull the engine extinguisher and later took credit for the correct action. In my mind a) or c) seems to be the most likely. Reason: The fire was major - see reasoning in 3) above. There were only two ways to get into the plane, through the rear door and up over the long range tanks - try doing that in a hurry - or by jumping up on the wing and walking to the cockpit door. Either way, a fire large enough to require the engine system to be activated (rather than the customary running the engine to suck the fire back into the engine) and the "several quart size hand operated" types being "played on yesterdays blaze" seems to suggest that the fire was such that no one would try to mount the airplane to take the action AE said she did. I could see other mechanics/attendants riding in the rear of the plane while it was being taxied to the hanger and fighting a fire on the ground out the rear door with the handhelds from within. These same guys could be relaying AE's instructions to Bo to pull the engine system if she was running along side yelling through the door. 5. The "red handled extinguisher" was an acid/soda type and not like that found by TIGHAR. AE was told, and she acknowledge, to keep it upright. Tip an acid/soda extinguisher and you've got discharge. The other hand helds were most likely carbon tet. and were finally refilled the day following the incident by "Her mechanic (that) secured recharges...and all was well." In conclusion I would suggest that the extinguisher from Gardner COULD have came from AE plane, and it wasn't the "red handled" one, but it certainly could be from other sources. The fire was more than just "minor" and COULD have caused the heat distress found on 2-2-V-1 and further research (go ahead and contact the paper - forget about the copyright issue - they may have additional photos, notes, etc., on file) into this Tucson event is warranted. The artifact 2-2-V-1 should be thoroughly examined for other evidence of a fire's effect: for example does the brittleness along the edge stop abruptly or does it taper off, do any of the remaining rivets exhibit heat distress, does the exterior side display a different harding/heating effect than the interior side - what side was exposed to a flame, is there any residue still lurking in the rivet holes or under the still intact rivets, etc.? Ted Campbell ************************************************************************ From Ric We could argue all day about which of the available sources is more reliable and at the end of the day all we'd have is opinion. Personally, I think it was Amelia who overprimed the engine, was taxiing the airplane, noticed the fire, exited the aircraft, re-entered the aircraft, and pulled the fire handle in the cockpit - just as she said. (For one thing, I don't think Bo would have overprimed it.) I think that it's possible that the carbon-tet extinguisher we found on Niku ccame from the airplane but I can't think of any way to prove it and I think it's much more likely that it was scavenged from the Loran station. I think a ground fire associated with the Tucson incident is a possible explanation for the heat damage we see on 2-2-V-1 but I can't think of any way to prove it even if we can establish that 2-2-V-1 came from NR16020. Unless some long-lost newsreel footage miraculously emerges I'm afraid that the Tuscon fire will join the long list of enigmatic events associated with the Earhart flight and disappearance. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:17:20 -0400 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: the extinguisher Ric said: "I think that it's possible that the carbon-tet extinguisher we found on Niku came from the airplane but I can't think of any way to prove it and I think it's much more likely that it was scavenged from the Loran station." Is there any way to date the manufacture of the carbon-tet bottle you have? Serial numbers, manufacturing techniques etc. etc. contact the company? And run it past their experts, like we did with the Cat's Paw shoe heel and other parts. If you can prove it was made c.1938 or later then we can definitely toss it out (figuratively, of course) as part of AE's 10E. If it was made prior to July 1937 then it is still in the mix of possible clues. LTM, who's no fire bug Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************ From Ric There is no number of any kind on the extinguisher and the design seems to have been around since the 1920s. I'd rather spend our limited time and resources on artifacts that have the potential for being more conclusive. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:18:45 -0400 From: Robert Ward Subject: Re: the Kenner letter I apologize for mis-leading..... I flew MATS throughout the South Pacific, i.e. R5ds (DC4s)....The flying boat was the MARS , and that was from Alameda to Hawaii(one was lost in the Philippians earlier on.....One piece of trivia...... There are still two Mars Flying boats working as Water droppers in Canada..despite the fact their almost 60 years old ! Robert.. ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0400 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Tucson fire Understand source of "fueling pit" - I have never found any hard copy reference to "fueling pit" at Tucson Municipal Airport in the year 1937 - Which adds credence to the lack of accuracy to the story telling found in "Last Flight" - May suggest dramatization by GP. Suspect NR16020 parked in front of main terminal area at time of fire - Possible reason for lack line fire bottle(s)- Time of day reinforces possible taxi to hangar area rather than fueling - Add aircrew temperament after long hot flight -Logic would dictate early AM fueling when air temp cooler - AE's mechanic most likely candidate for taxi effort outside of Amelia during this fire incident - No mechanics DO NOT always know cockpits and their controls as well as pilots especially a new aircraft with a relatively a short service life as NR16020. Suggest researching Miami airframe and engine maintenance performed on NR16020 to better understand if major damage occurred from this Tucson line fire incident. The Tucson Daily Star article may shed light on more than just the Tucson fire incident. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ************************************************************************ From Ric You seem very comfortable substituting your own speculation for the information in the primary sources. "Fueling pit" may have just been the way AE referred to wherever the fueling was done. I've been in aviation as a pilot for 39 years and I've never heard of a "fueling pit". Seems like an odd term. I can't imagine that aircraft were ever fueled in "pits". Can anyone shed some light on this? I've also never postponed fueling for the sake of cooler morning temperatures, but such speculation is pointless in this case because Earhart's original intention was to refuel and continue on that same day. It was the fire that necessitated the overnight stay. If you know of any way to research whatever airframe and engine maintenance was done in Miami beyond the little bit that is already known we'd all welcome that information. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:42:28 -0400 From: Don Robinson Subject: Fueling pits Way back in 1941 I learned to fly on the CPT program in Greenville, SC. The FBO there had what we called the "gas pit" for refueling. It was close to the one and only hangar that was on the field at that time. It was a underground tank with a metal box over the tank that contained a pump and a reel of hose for refueling aircraft. Concrete was poured around the box from bottom to top making it sort of a dome. The metal box had a metal cover when not in use. I guess that is why it was referred to as a "pit". If I am wrong, I apologize. Don Robinson ****************************************